Comments

  1. Gigi says

    Who approved this interview? He does not sound innocent. He sounds old and confused and sorry that he got caught but innocent…
    not so much.

  2. jason says

    Every person is innocent until proven guilty. It’s the basic tenet of our society. Let the law takes its course and let the facts reveal themselves.

  3. John says

    I could hardly listen to this interview. It makes me sick to my stomach to hear the way this man speaks!

  4. jason says

    Could it be that the accusers are seeking to get back at Sandusky for reasons other than sexual abuse? I just wonder how much of this may be the product of not liking the guy and hence seeking ways to get back at him. Perhaps there’s a financial motive on the part of the accusers?

    As with anything, we need to keep an open mind until the law has dealt with it. Let the legal process decide.

  5. Mark says

    Regardless of motive, as an adult working with young people you don’t allow yourself to be put in situations which unecessarily compromise you personally–i.e. showering with children alone. IMO this man had too much unchecked authority over this kids–something we hear far too often about the pedophile priests who parents trusted their children to without question.

    I had this same argument with others during the Michael Jackson trial. Regardless of his guilt or innocence, it was inappropriate for a grown man to be sleeping in the same bed with other people’s children.

    If you put yourself in those situations, don’t be surprised if you have to deal with the unfortunate consequences.

  6. Jack M says

    I wonder what people would think of me if I took a shower with a ten year old? Let’s cut through the rhetoric and look at the basic scenario. What kind of man does that?

  7. says

    Ever so typical of “Json” to come to jerry Sandusky’s defense.

    After all Jerry Sandusky is a “REAL MAN” a “SPORTS HERO” — not some fluffy queen who “acts like a woman.”

  8. prcm says

    I find it exceedingly strange that people so quickly jump to “innocent until proven guilty” in these situations. That presumption is one in a court of law, and one I happen to agree with, but its not actually the case that it’s a basic tenet of our society that informed people can’t make judgments before a jury renders a verdict. So, ummm… yeah, he’s guilty. That assessment would make me a bad jury, but not a bad American.

  9. says

    “I should not have showered with those boys” has the same hollow rings as “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” and “I have never been inappropriate with anybody.”

  10. Gregoire says

    Jason, only a sick person could listen to that interview and think, “Sure, sounds reasonable to me!”

  11. David in Houston says

    “I have hugged them, and I have touched their legs without intent of sexual contact.”

    Did this take place in the shower? Why would he be touching their legs, in any context?

    After listening to him talk, he sounds like a closeted self-loathing gay man who was acting out on his deeply repressed sexuality. (For the record, I’m not implying that men that rape boys are gay. Most of the time they aren’t. But in this case, I think he is gay and he took advantage of these boys to deal with his homosexuality.)

  12. Robert in NYC says

    Apparently, there was a witness to Sandusky sexually abusing a 10 year old boy in the shower. He’s clearly in denial. That said, had the victims been females, would the right wing republican bigots and media have lambasted him, including NOM, AFA and others as well as denigrated his hetero orientation? I think not.

  13. Caliban says

    According to grand jury testimony two separate witnesses observed Sandusky having sex with a child, both times IIRC in the Penn State showers or locker room. There’s McQueary, the coaching assistant who called his father and notified Paterno the day after seeing Sandusky sodomizing a 10 year old in the showers (so the report was immediately after the event even if nothing was done about it). Then there’s the janitor who saw Sandusky performing oral sex on a child. He told the other janitors about what he’d seen at that time but apparently not his supervisor or anyone in the football program.

    Sandusky is lying through his teeth.

  14. fivefathoms says

    This scenario is so disturbing, and I can’t help but time and again hear the ghost of Michael Jackson in this man’s voice. I know I shouldn’t go there, but I hear and feel such close similarities that’s extremely disturbing.

  15. says

    This was a disgusting piece of television journalism. It brought no new information to light; it gave Sandusky and his team a national mouthpiece to proclaim his innocence and seed doubt about his guilt. It is up to a court of law to prove guilt, and he is “innocent” in the eyes of the law until then. But, NBC news is not a court of a law, and in deciding to run this piece, they blatantly ignore the obvious facts contained in the grand jury indictment: there were two, separate, eye-witness accounts of child rape, not “molestation”, and 6 other victim claims of sexual misconduct.
    Why give this scumbag a chance to speak at all, especially since he has nothing to add to the information already known? He clearly sat down with his attorney, decided the only legaly route that would prevent him from dying in a prison was to declare his innocence, and will logically run with this defense. THIS IS NOT NEWS! Nor is it news that the defense attorney “truly believes” his client is innocent. What else would he say on national TV? Bob Costas and NBC should be ashamed.

  16. Fred says

    40 counts by the grand jury, multiple eye witness accounts, multiple accusers, multiple victims – 8 reported thus far…

    There’s much more to this story!

  17. Donny with a "D" says

    No. No I will not “Listen to the astonishing interview” but thanks anyway. This case and the years it took to address it are beyond evil and tragic.

  18. Rick says

    None of you people even know exactly what is in the grand jury report. Furthermore, one of the two supposed eyewitnesses–McQueary–is now claiming that he “broke up” the supposed intercourse between Sandusky and the 10-year-old he was supposedly raping. Changing his story, perhaps, due to the unfavorable publicity that HE got from people saying that he should have acted to stop Sandusky?

    You have to be suspicious of someone who changes their story in any case like this, particularly when it is strictly a “He said, he said” situation.

    Let’s also not forget that the motives of the parents may not be particularly savory–many of them obviously have a financial motive in all this–they could collect millions from Penn State in civil suits if they win.

    I personally find it almost impossible to believe that not only Joe Paterno, but the Athletics Director, and two other higher-ups knew about this and did nothing, instead choosing to cover it all up. One or two maybe, but all four? No way.

    There is a lot we don’t know and those of you seeking to hang the guy before he has even gotten a fair hearing obviously have an unsavory agenda of your own……

  19. Rob West says

    Today (in the media and internet), you are guilty till proven innocent.
    With that said, he does sound guilty.

  20. Rob West says

    I also wish the term Evil were not being used, started with Bush and the evil doers, sounds like the Spanish Inquisition or Salem Witch Trials.

  21. Jay says

    I get the feeling from a lot of these comments (just like so many online posts) that people comment without reading the article or watching the video in its entirety. Please watch this video in its entirety before offering your two cents, guys.

    Rick, while we don’t know what’s in the grand jury report, we can pass judgment on how Sandusky handled himself in this interview, and that speaks LOUDLY.

  22. TJ says

    Why am I not surprised that RICK is once again annoying the heck out of me…

    The grand jury report is available in PDF form online. Just google Sandusky grand jury report. Easy enough to read the whole, sordid mess.

    What Sandusky ADMITS to was inappropriate and constitutes, according to legal experts, misdemeanors at the very least. One can read a transcript of the interview as well, but I’d suggest listening to him. He pauses as he tries to address the question about sexual attraction, and phrases his response in a way that indicates how he is drawn to – attracted to – young people. Pedophiles often don’t see what they do as abuse. They believe that they are in a relationship with their victim.

    If RICK can’t see how wrong on so many levels it is or a 50+ year-old man to have the kind of contact HE ADMITS TO with 10 year-old boys, then “unsavory” is the least of descriptors I would choose for him.

  23. Hollywood, CA says

    “Innocent in all aspects?”

    “Umm.. well…”

    ?!?!?!?!?

    It’s either YES or NO, Perv! You’re going down!

  24. Hollywood, CA says

    Not that it would be any less tragic, but has there ever been a case where the accused says “Yes. I touched those kids. I tried to fight the urges, but pretty soon I just couldn’t help myself. And, after doing it one time, I had to do it again and again. I began workign with kids so I could prey on them without people finding out. I am sorry, I was abused when I was young, etc.”

    At least then it would be over with, and people could move on. At the very least, he admits to showering NAKED with little boys who were not related to him, without another adult present. That should be a crime in itself! The only adults I ever showered in front of was at the YMCA, and my parents were there.

  25. Rin says

    @Rick

    All I can say is… :(

    If this weren’t a football coach and a priest instead would you still feel this way?

  26. Rick says

    @RIN Would I feel what way? All I said was that we don’t know all the facts yet–that is what they have trials for in this country, you know?

    There are a lot of suspicious circumstances here that involve the other parties involved and a lot of reason to be cynical about the motives of any of them, including Sandusky.

    I suspect that all the hostility you are seeing from some of these people is due to them associating a football coach with the masculinity they fear and seeing his alleged acts as reminiscent of the domination (and contempt) they have been subjected to by more masculine men. That….and the desire by some of the politicos to “prove” that gay men are not pedophiles by behaving harshly towards someone who has been accused of such (pedophilia being one of the traditional charges that have been levied against gay men, in general). Not due to any desire for justice on their part…..most of them, after all, have no more interest in the welfare of boys than they do any identification with males, in general.

    Let me just throw out another possibility. Perhaps Sandusky is, in fact, gay, and perhaps some people around the program who knew that, including McQueary, are/were homophobes who wanted to find a way to do him in…….and this is what they came up with, knowing that no charge “sticks” to a gay man more effectively than the charge of child molestation. Doesn’t it appear odd to some of you that he and his wife never had their own children–that all of his children are adopted or are foster children? Maybe she was infertile…..or maybe she married him knowing he was gay, out of whatever motive she might have had.

    And why have we heard nothing at all from her…or even seen evidence of her? Usually when there is a sexual scandal of this sort, the spouse is out there on the front lines.

    Something very odd about the whole situation for anybody looking at it objectively.

  27. Rin says

    @Rick

    Let me clarify, if this were a Catholic priest who admitted to taking showers with young boys, of touching their legs, of “horsing around” while naked…if ten adult men showed up and said that this man had some kind of sex with them or pimped them out…would you believe that the priest was being framed because he was a priest?

    Men, as you know, historically have always wanted to remain “intact”. Why would they come forward as adult saying that an adult man raped them and pimped them out?

    The evidence seems very overwhelming to me, but…that’s me. I am always overly cautious when adults wish to spend too much alone time with children not their own.

  28. antisaint says

    To be fair, Rick, you didn’t say we didn’t know all the facts, you said no one knows what’s in the grand jury report, which, as has been stated, is readily available to anyone who wants to read it. I’m sure not everyone here has but I’m sure a few have. I have. It’s as true the man has a right to due process as it is that he’s been deemed ‘guilty’ by the court of public opinion, but I’m not seeing how anyone who actually read that report walks away thinking more about a conspiracy against him. How about Victim 6? 1998?

  29. betmatthewnyc says

    come on people. sadly there is no innocence in any part of what’s transpired here. he’s in denial and is very sick (and by that I mean has a terrible illness/disease); clearly he has a inappropriate/sexual attraction to children, by his own admission. where there is smoke there is fire. sad, troubling and unfortunate all the way around…

  30. says

    Rick—no need to be incredulous. Power and money corrupt most. The conspirators protected the cash/power cow. Noting new here.

    The previous most-successful football program, at U of Chicago was killd by the great president, Robert Maynard Hurchins. He understood that the successful sports program was ruining the University.